expiration of the harvey rose contract. the second is the third legislative aid position added to the department's budget this year. and the third is the youth commission position, and i'll just touch briefly on each of them. the budget analyst contract expires on december 31st, in 2013 which means that the department must pursue either a request for proposals process to select a vendor, or bring the services in-house. either of these options may have an impact on the department's draft budget. regarding the [speaker not understood] position, the salary cost for supervisor increase 1.3 million during the current year due to the [speaker not understood] position. new cost will be incurred the next fiscal year as the annualization will occur -- will be providing for salary for 12 months rather than i think the 8 or 9 months that we have in the current year's salary -- budget. and the third factor is the youth commission. staffing. as a pilot program, the department is l telling the

coordinator of community outreach and civic engagement youth position. we will continue to do that through june of 2013 at which case we will be able to demonstrate the position's impact. we intend on collecting data. we'll be able to provide information to the committee about the efficacy of this position beginning in the spring 2013. if there aren't any questions about the current budget, i can move to the action items that are before you. i have put it up on the overhead. there are about four questions there. there is a committee support drafting 13-14 and 14-15 in your budget a approved in june 2012 as a baseline to start from. budget analyst the committee can authorize me to bring it in-house or to rfp the services. contemplate the third a position and annualizing the

salary and fringe for those positions and the youth commission, third position. so, perhaps i can jump right into it. >> in terms of the budget analyst services, in terms of that one, can you tell me a little bit about what it would take? * this is a question that has been asked time and time again about whether or not we can actually bring this in-house or not. i think there is a fair amount of members on the board who are interested in exploring that idea. in terms of the logistics of it, would we be able to do that immediately in time for this budget? can you help us walk through that? what would be sort of your recommendation? would it be to go through an rfp process first and then to evaluate another time? can you just tell us logistically how it would work to do this? >> yes, madam chair. it's my advice that the committee directs me to competitively bid these services. i am happy to at the end of

awarding that contract, be able to take some further time and investigate the actual details around the independence issue, the chain of command and who the budget analyst would report to, how our office would interact, how they would interact with the members of the board, where exactly they would be housed here at the board of supervisors. you could also direct me to investigate other jurisdictional cities. los angeles, san diego, new york to look at how they are provided budget analyst services. so, i think it's from the comfort of actually having a contract that you could then further direct me to provide that information to the committee. >> okay. and if we were to go forward with an rfp and eventually that rfp would have to come back for approval, could we have it be flexible such that if there was a decision by this body at a later time to actually do a contract, any type of proposal we would be flexible enough to make sure that contract is not existing at the same time as we

bring in folks? >> yes, supervisor chu. there is currently in the contract the ability to cease contracting with the joint venture at the board's convenience. we would, of course, have something in the new contract once approved for that same convenience for the board should they choose to go in that direction. and, of course, we would dovetail service -- we would allow for the dovetailing of services to occur if the board chose to bring the house. >> okay. for this item, i'd like to hear from my colleague as well, in terms of the budget and legislative analyst services it steams to me to make sense to take your advice so we are able to secure services [speaker not understood] during the time we are actually analyzing the policy to whether or not to do something in-house. i think if we were to try to do that immediately in this coming budget year, i think that would be too fast, in addition to kind of figuring out what the structure would look like. we would have to do the hiring.

i think that's just not something that we could do in time anyhow. that would be my preference. and for you to come back to us at a later time to report back on how it is we might proceed forward, thinking through the prowl is choices of bringing it in. so, whether that might mean direction from the board and the future to go with other jurisdictions ask what they do, what that looks like, we would look to you for some guidance on that. >> happy to do that. >> that would be my preference as well, that we would rfp and have a contract in place in the next fiscal year for at least certain duration of time. i've always had the discussion about an in-house budget and legislative analyst in a vacuum. it's really hard to know what we're talking about. what we have to compare with is what we have the current situation with our budget and legislative analyst. but can we expect the get the same level of service whether

-- i think there are situations that harvey rose's shop has where they were able to actually bring in staff or keep times during the budget season. do we have the same kind of flexibility with an in-house staff? how would we actually know how to make the best comparison between the two to make an informed decision? i think that having an analysis and a report before us to compare will help us to decide in the future about bringing in-house and we can also ascribe to -- in developing a plan for an in-house operation for budget and legislative analysis services. we can create a menu of options as well that we know we're actually getting ourselves into by going down that pathway. so, i'd like to create a similar pathway to make a decision around in the future in-house versus contracting out that service. so, in the meantime i'm happy

to support contracting out and moving with a contract for at least a couple years before making that decision about bigger change. >> great. if i could make a suggestion, just to follow-up on your point, madam chair, that once we award the contract, it isn't until that point that i'm directed to begin the informational hearings which could [speaker not understood] how we can bring it in-house. >> that would make sense. that would limit staff in terms of having your folks focus on completing that and doing that well and moving forward with the next step. >> okay, thank you. >> okay. and then on the second or the first bullet point which is designate the board drafting 13-14, 14-15, [speaker not understood], i think i would support having our current budget as our baseline. i would just be cautious of if there are any one-time monies put into place we would kind of strip those things out because

they're not intended to be baseline. >> yes. >> okay. on the third a question, do we continue to support drafting the budget to include third a? my preference to have it as a priority for the budget, but that being said i think during the budget process last year a majority of the board members did vote to make sure that third a was in there and we budgeted it, it was also included in the second year budget as well. so, i would actually say that to be consistent with the budget we would want to include the third aid in the budget. >> yes, that was actually thinking about a fourth aid. just kidding. a third aid, i think that's the right way to go. i'm actually very happy with our decision last year to do that. so, we can continue that as part of the baseline. that will be great. >> okay. finally, the committee supporting the draft budget

salary [speaker not understood] engagement position, can you just explain to me a bit how many folks are there at the moment, kind of what the trajectory has been on hiring, and how you're paying for it? >> thank you. currently there are three positions in the youth position. there are two that are filled probably in a year and a half ago, we removed the salary from the third position. the position is actually still in our department. we have unexpected salary savings that we are willing to scrape together to actually fund this position for the next six months. and we are currently in the recruitment process. we have the director of youth commission who has just finished reviewing the applicants and is now sending several of his highest candidates to me for a final hiring. >> okay. and in terms of a salary savings, i guess what are you foregoing to do that? >> in the department this year we have had and last year

several high profile retirements which we have -- with huge endeavor tried to work with the department of human resources to fill these positions. but because there is a new system in place and things are taking a significant more period of time as everybody gets trained on the new system, it's taking us longer than we expected to hire into these positions. so, some of these positions have been just delayed hiring and it's from -- it's that extra salary that we're taking off the top of several positions. one is in it. this youth commission position is being funded by a position in our accountant or payroll personnel. we have a clerk position that was vacant for a while. there are various positions we're hiring later than expected. >> got it. it's being funded by one-time salary savings for positions -- >> yes. >> -- that we would be paying for on an ongoing basis? >> that is correct. >> okay.

i may differ on this one, but i actually would not include that as a priority for me. if we are talking about one-time savings supporting from another as an ongoing expense, that just doesn't fit. but also i think in terms of a third position at the youth commission, there are existing two positions or two full level staff in order to support the youth commission. i know that there is a large need in term of being able to get policy or to have people and have the engagement of students and that tasectiontion a lot of efforts. but i also recognize that within our own clerk's office we have a huge amount of needs to do more things like being able to digitize our records, something that we have been woefully behind in. * takes so, if it were my priority, i would not use your salary savings to actually pay for an ongoing position, a third position in the youth commission. personally, i would rather see that money actually go towards getting more ahead of our digitization programs. and, so, that's my own

preference. i think that that may be a different opinion among different supervisors and i'm not sure we're going to have a definitive direction for you on that one. supervisor avalos, any comment? >> i would support the position to be included. i think the work of the youth commission, deepening the voice and strengthening the voice of the young people, play a key role, this is a good position to make that happen. i think all too often we make decisions that don't really incorporate a lot of input from young people and this is key for making that happen. so, i would like to -- at least have it before us that we can see what we're talking about in terms of cost. >> so, madam chair, if i could, may i ask for the permission to fund the position from my salary savings for this current yearv, placing the full salary in the draft budget, for the board then to determine the efficacy of the position in june with some measurements and we will show you in advance to

get your approval on. and then come june if the position does not hold as much value as you would expected it to, that salary could be removed from the department's budget. >> that is a problem i see. once you hire someone, it is very hard and very difficult to actually not -- to say that you're going to terminate that position. >> we can hire them with the expectation that this is a pilot program to be determined by the board. >> right. i guess the other question that it raises for me is what metrics are we using to say what the value of that extra employee would be for this purpose. and, so, not kind of understanding what those metrics would be would be hard. would it be the number of engagements that they have, the number of additional legislation that they put out? there is not really -- and i think people will value that in a very subjective way. so, i just don't think that you're going to get direction, unified direction from this committee on this item because

i truly believe that in a place where we have scarce resources to deal with all the money issues that we have, that currently being able to have two members support youth commission is a good place to be, knowing that we have the possibility to help with digitization of our records that go back so many years that we are woefully behind in. so, you know, personally, i can't, i can't agree that that's the best thing to do, hire someone and say we'll keep you on, maybe we won't. i don't think that's the best [speaker not understood]. so, i think you may have to go back and speak with the majority of the members of the board and just get your feel from those conversations. >> thank you, supervisor chu. >> just a question. are we looking to get additional support to do the digitization of our files? is that something that you could actually have here before us as a recommendation?

you're looking for additional funding for it? you only do that within your existing budget? >> every year the last five years i have brought the issue of digitization before the committee [speaker not understood]. last year's budget i received approval from the committee and the board to hire a position to start the process. and what we have is a position that we utilized previously for it services is actually going to assist us as well. so, we'll have two in-house positions to help us with this, which will be just a part of the it's duties. we will be bringing a proposal to the board in the next year to do that digitizing the board's records. madam chair, i appreciate you bringing that up as i didn't mention it today, but we are on track to bring a proposal to the board to do that. probably -- possibly in june or the following year. >> is that a project of a

certain duration in time or one we expect to be permanent -- >> i understand the puc has 10 years ago started digitizing their records and they are at the precipice of doing that work. we have 2000 boxes in storage. i'm not sure how that compares to the puc's load, but i cannot at this point put a time frame around how long it will take us until we investigate how much time it takes to digitize our records. >> okay, thank you. does that provide the information that you need to move forward? >> it does. thank you very much. >> okay. and then do you need to prepare a file -- >> yes. thank you for bringing it up. clerk young has already done the research for me. he's pulled out a motion, the original motion that it took to competitively bid these services. we are going to amend it together. we'll show it to you and to you, supervisor avalos, before submitting it to the board on

tuesday [speaker not understood] and adopt without reference to the committee. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. with that, can we file this item? >> [speaker not understood]. >> sorry. why don't we open this item up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item? >> no one here but us chickens. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you very much. and can we entertain a motion to file this item? okay. we have a motion to file the item with the direction to the clerk to prepare an item for the adoption without committee reference that reflects the conversation we've had today. and we can do that without objection. thank you. do we have any other items before us? >> that completes the agenda for today. >> thank you. we are adjourned. [adjourned]

>> president chiu: good afternoon. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting of

tuesday, november 20, 2012. madam clerk, call the roll clmpletsd supervisor avalos, present. supervisor campos, present. president chiu, present. supervisor chu, present. supervisor cohen, present. supervisor elsbernd, present. supervisor farrell, present. supervisor kim, present. supervisor mar, present. supervisor olague, present. supervisor wiener, present. mr. president, all members are present. >> president chiu: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, could you please join us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

>> president chiu: colleagues, we have board meeting minutes from october 9, 2012. approve, motion by supervisor mar, seconded by supervisor campos. those are approved. are there any communications? >> clerk calvillo: there are no communications. >> president chiu: could you read 2 pm special order. >> clerk calvillo: the policy discussion between mayor edwin lee and mrs of the board of supervisors. this week representing two even districts, districts 6 and 10. the mayor may initially address the board for up to five minutes. president will recognize the supervisor who will present their own questions sphp follow upquestions are in order as long as they do not exceed five minutes per supervisor. >> president chiu: welcome you back and i'm heartened at all the press attention on question time. mr. mayor. >> mayor lee: thank you, president chiu. thank you for asking me here to answer these two very important questions today. before i begin, i'd hike to thank everyone here, board of

supervisors of course, the audience, and theas leadership here at the board, after a very important election. and the results that have moved our city forward in the right direction, from the payroll tax reform to housing, to taking care of our parks. i appreciate your advocacy and your commitment to san francisco. because of our collective efforts, san francisco voters were able to make a very thoughtful choices at the ballot box this past couple of weeks, that have helped fund infrastructure, move to job creating tax policy, and invest in critical housing needs in our city. collectively helping san francisco families and businesses. with that i'd like to take your two questions, supervisors. thank you. >> president chiu: thank you. our first question will be provided by our district 6 colleague, supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: thank you and congratulations on your leadership on the propositions we passed a through e.

in our district we've gotten many e-mails and questions about this but something that hasa uát up with our resident what are current procedures for recouping cost for street closures. specifically, what costs are being reimbursed to the city, beyond permitting fees and what costs incurred by departments other than the mta and sf police department is being recouped. in addition to required traffic control plan how is the city ensuring that major corporations allow pedestrian cyclist access in case of street closures. does the city evaluate increased traffic congestion in downtown areas when permitting street recoup that cost? >> mayor lee: thank you for your questions, supervisor kim. we don't take lightly the decision to close public facilities like streets and parks. but the events you mention, like

oracles open world and sales forces dream force conference are full cost recovery events. this includes costs incurred by departments, public works, and entertainment commission. this is not just actual staff time spent on the streets and permits, but also administrative and facilities cost as well as extensive planning costs. for example, the mta recoups costs associated with traffic engineering, road striping, removal and reinstallations of services. totaled over $53,000 for open world, and over $38,000 for dream force. with regards to pedestrian and cyclist access, we require advanced detour signage to be posted. in the specific case of howard street, we required that the south sidewalk be opened at all times for pedestrians and

cyclists. any street closure that happens in the city goes through a public hearing at the interdepartmental staff committee on traffic and transportation, or what we bureaucrats call is cot, which requires extensive detour signage, personnel during any closure. all of these costs are paid for by event sponsors. but above and beyond staff cost and street closures, these major events are very positive -- have that deserve equal attention. these events create and support thowntdz of jobs in this city, where tourism is our number one industry. let's examine these two events specifically. during the dream force conference this year, san francisco had a 94% occupancy rate in our hotels.

during oracle open world, we ran a 92% occupancy rate. for both of those weeks, san francisco had the highest occupancy rate in the whole country. let me repeat, in the whole occupied rooms than anywhere else. high occupancy in our hotels means increased sales tax dollars being generated focusing again on the subject of your question of the open world oracle open world, it is estimated that they had an economic impact of $120 million for the week that they were here. during that week, over 97,000 hotel room nights were occupied. on average, this means over $24 million in hotel revenue and $3.4 million in tax revenue, all our general fund. i want to assure you all that we

are doing everything we can to limit traffic impacts caused by these types of events, and we execute these events. this isn't just about making sure we're reimbursed. it will bring economic impact to businesses and our own general fund as well as a level of activity and vibrancy that makes san francisco unique. i believe that with careful planning and enforcement in place we should encourage these types of events in thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. question will be provided by our district 10 colleague, supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, his good afternoon,e jpvz mr. mayor. mr. mayor, with the november election behind us our federal delegation is contending with potentially significant budget sequestration. have you examined what some of the potential impacts of these

cuts may be to the city programs and services, particularly those that serve the poor and those in federally subsidized housing? >> mayor lee: thank you, supervisor, for raising this important issue. while we recently avoided state trigger cuts with the passage of proposition 30 we're not out of the woods yet. we all need to focus very closely on the fiscal cliff and sequestration cuts that it includes. the impacts on san francisco could be devastating. until we have more clarity, what congress as a whole might or might not do we will need to remain vigilant about protecting our reserves and the city's financial position. that said i'm encouraged by the reelection of president obama and certainly for the leadership that leader pelosi has given and will continue to give. we will need their leadership as the president must quickly face

the challenge of his second term, avoiding this fiscal cliff. in august of 2011 congress passed the budget control act which threatened automatic spending cuts if congress failed to come up with a planned deficit reduction by 2013. these cuts are what we refer to as sequestration. this would mean an across the board cut of between 7% and 10% of all defense and non-defense federal spending irrespective of policy or its impact on everyday people. these cuts would be absolutely devastating to our national and local economies. our -- show that sequestration will reduce federal funding direct to san francisco by at least 26.5 million dollars a year, every single year. we would see over $5 million of cut to education, and almost $3

million of cuts from public housing. san francisco's allocation of medicare would be cut by $2 million. funding for the wic workforce program would lose almost $5 million. there would be a $1 million cut to housing services for people with hiv and aids and more than $1 million cut to the community development block grant program. ladies and gentlemen, this is our safety net. and our safety net's already strained by years of state cuts and it cannot sustain these additional reductions in federal funding. in addition to the cuts i have just detailed, there are also competitive grants and state pass-throughs that will also see cuts, and totals for which we really cannot estimate at this time. although this is serious business, and we need to get engaged -- although this is serious, we need to get engaged